Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18419 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2750 of 2025 Applicant :- Kusuma And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1-State while power on behalf of complainant has been filed by Mr. Ajeet Kumar Singh, Advocate, which is taken on record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.525 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi. 3. As per contents of FIR, allegations levelled is that the applicant no.1 is the real sister of informant and she alongwith applicant no.2 i.e her husband manufactured a forged will which was registered on 10.01.2022 by impersonating their father who in fact passed away on 15.07.2021 itself. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicants have been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against them and a bare perusal of the FIR clearly indicates a civil dispute being given a criminal colour. It is submitted that regular suit has also been filed with regard to the said dispute which is still pending consideration. It is denied that will was forged. It is submitted that applicants do not have any previous criminal history they are under incarceration since 04.02.2025. 5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for complainant have opposed bail application with submission that contents of F.I.R. clearly indicate the fact that father of informant and the applicant no.1 passed away on 15.07.2021 whereafter a forged will was registered on 10.01.2022 by impersonating the deceased. It is however admitted that the applicants do not have any previous criminal history. 6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution." 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that the entire gist of allegations centre around the validity of will which was registered on 10.01.2022, the cancellation of which has already been sought in civil proceedings. Considering the aforesaid fact as well the aspect that validity of will is under challenged in civil proceedings and therefore being no previous criminal history of applicants, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 9. Let applicants Kusuma and Rakesh involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Subodh/- Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench